Author
Topic: Is the Apostolic See of Rome vacant? (Read 7188 times)

If you do not regard the liturgical practises of the Western (rc) Church(es) and their special teachings as binding and if you life within their canonical territorry, but do not submit to the latter (pope, local bishop), than it would be concludent to declare the Apostolic See as well as all other sees to be vacant, not?

If you regard them as not vacant, why are you not entering into their episcope or - if you are convinced that their orthodoxy is not given - declare them as vacant and build up orthodox local churches and elect a latter, which is in communion with the rest of the catholic-orthodox church?

If you do not regard the liturgical practises of the Western (rc) Church(es) and their special teachings as binding and if you life within their canonical territorry, but do not submit to the latter (pope, local bishop), than it would be concludent to declare the Apostolic See as well as all other sees to be vacant, not?

If you regard them as not vacant, why are you not entering into their episcope or - if you are convinced that their orthodoxy is not given - declare them as vacant and build up orthodox local churches and elect a latter, which is in communion with the rest of the catholic-orthodox church?

Wouldn't that be a task for a panorthodox (general) synod?

The Apostolic See? Habemus papam.and the see of Old Rome isn't vacant at present

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why would the See of Rome be vacant? It is just out of communion with the True Church.

There are bishops outside of the Church?

Do not the canons speak baout heretic and schismatic bishops?

The only reference I can think of uses the phrase 'so-called bishops'. And throughout the conciliar period, it was standard practice to ordain an Orthodox bishop to any see where the incumbent was heretical/schismatic (which is how we end up with both EO and OO Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, both considered the legitimate successor of St. Mark and St. Peter, respectively by their respective communions).

When the incumbent for the See of Rome fell into schism it was only the practical matter (that all the people went with him and there was no Orthodox congregation to support an Orthodox bishop). The same was true in reverse in that Rome didn't consecrate a replacement for the EP--until they conquered Constantinople and and then were able to consecrated a holder of the see from their point of view.

So yes, the See of Rome is either vacant (as it has been for the last millennium) or filled by Bishop Silouan depending on how takes the the careful political phrasing of the latter's title.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

though in a certain sense it might be technically correct to say that Orthodox are 'sedevacantists', it is actually quite misleading. True sedevacantists are thoroughly Roman, in that they share the same distorted ecclesiology which is at the root of most of the difference between Orthodoxy and the Papacy--to whit, that the "Patriarchate of the West" (that is any honors or privileges possessed by the Bishop of Rome beyond those of any other diocesan bishop) is a integral part of the Apostolic Deposit rather than a historically contingent development with important practical but no doctrinal implications.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Allow me to congratulate you, Celestinus, for asking the very best question this subset "Western rite forum" has ever had asked within it.

Your questions and presence here are a blessing for us.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Somewhere here I posted the relevant texts: the Constutition of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate stipulates that bishops take their title from their see, and the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Bishoprick of Italy specifies that his see is Rome.

His see had been at Lucca. Somehow I doubt anyone would have a problem with calling him the bishop of Lucca, although the Vatican has its bishop there too, subject directly to the Vatican.

« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 01:04:16 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In the governance of the Church, says Fortescue, the Orthodox still cling to the old ideal of the Pentarchy. Yet they believe that one of it's prime members, the Patriarch of Rome, has fallen into grave heresy and must repent in order for the Pentarchy to be restored. He says that if the pope were to renounce what the Orthodox regard to be his errors, the pope would again be recognized as the first among bishops. For traditionally the Eastern Churches acknowledged "the Pope as the first Patriarch and chief bishop in Christendom, and also as Patriarch having lawful jurisdiction over all the West"

Fortescue maintains that in this scenario the primacy enjoyed by the pope would be merely a primacy of honour. This means that he would have no real jurisdiction over the other patriarchs. While the pope would be able to exercise his power throughout the West, he would have absolutely no authority in the Christian East (except within the rare instances of when he is petitioned to uphold the truth in the face of heresy within a local eastern patriarchates jurisdicton). Until than says Fortescue, as long as the pope continues to persist in his claims, the Orthodox view him as nothing more than "the head of a heretical Church, no more to be taken account than the Armenian, Coptic, or Jacobite (Syriac) Patriarchs"

Since the Orthodox believe their communion alone to be the one true Church, Fortescue cannot help questioning why they have not simply restored the Pentarchy by appointing an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Here again he identifies another example of what he regards as Orthodox inconsistency. If the Orthodox took their own claims seriously, he argues, they should have long ago established a rival patriarch of the Orthodox faith in Rome, just as they have done in Alexandria, Syria, and Jerusalem. Yet they have not done so, and in reality "they practically acknowledge the Pope as head of the Western Church and legitimate first Patriarch, and they really only complain of his universal claim." Thus in this matter as in others, Fortescue believes that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology"

Fortescues (and most non-Orthodox sede-vacantists) approach to papal primacy is heavily coloured by Vatican I, which stressed that the pope "posseses a preminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate." Nonetheless, Fortescue admits that the governance of the Church was not always as centralized as it has come to be:

Atlhough he zealously defends the papacy, in his private correspondence Fortesce expresses some misgivings about Rome's centralizing tendencies. In a personal letter to Herbert Thurston, Fortescue provides a rare glimpse into his concerns regarding papal power, especially as it was exercised by Pope Piux X during the crusade against Modernism:

"You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives--unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am always preaching that sort of thing. And yet it is not now getting to a reductio ad absurdum? Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?.... We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, as bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephen, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.

In spite of his private concerns, Fortescue remained a stalwart defender of the papal prerogatives throughout his life. It is his contention that the papacy is the primay element lacking in the E. Orthodox Church, and that it alone can enable the Eastern Churches to triumph over the challenges they face.

quoting from "Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches" by Dr. Anthony Dragani (an old friend of mine.)

However, Forescues view that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology" is not one that I would share. One could as easily say , as I did when I was in communion with Rome that "it is hopeless to look for consistency in present day (latin) Catholic theology". There is not perfection found anywhere ...we settle with what we think is the closest available.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 12:28:51 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

The image I take for my avatar is a "traditio legis" for the feasts of SS. Peter & Paul from 12th c. austrian MS.

Quote

Quote

Architecturally, both structures paraphrased Byzantine imperial architecture in Constantinople more or less explicitly to stress the imperial rank of the Lateran and the Pope as established by the Constantinian Donation. The now lost apse mosaic of the "aula leonina" alluded to the Roman church and its role in the world by referring in a titulus to Matthew 28: 19-20:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Song and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

In depiction, Peter stepped forward from the ranks of the eleven apostles who were receiving the mission from the resurrected Christ (Fig. 126). The apparent aim was to stress the primacy of the Roman See within the Church; Hans Belting has demonstrated that the mosaic's particular emphasis on Peter was based on a depection of the traditio legis shown on Leo I's fifth-century sarcophagus.

The ecclesiological content of the mosaic was brought into a contemporary political context through an image on the right side of the apsidal arch of the "aula" known, together with the rest of the mosaic, through an eighteenth-century copy. In presenting the double investitute of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III by St. Peter respectively through banner and pallium, the image emphasized the Frankish king's duty to protect the Church, whose supreme head was the pope, represented in the mosaic in the act of receiving Peter's pallium.

The ecclesiological subject of the Mission to the Apostles in the "aula" was further elaborated in the ten niches along the sides of the "sala del concilio," which were "painted with various representations of the apostles preaching to the nations". The group of apostles in the niches was completed by Peter and Paul in the apse, which in the apsidal arch the heavenly Church was represented by the imagery of the Twenty-Four Elders and the Four Beasts of the Apocalypse and other saints and martyrs adoring the clipeus of Christs face on the keystone (Fig. 43). The two apostles in the apse were singled out to express the idea of the "concordia apostolorum" and the universality of the Roman church. Below the apse, the enthroned pope, whose heavenly counterpart was displayed on the apsidal arch, was authorized as the leader of the terrestrial Church.

The program of Paschal's objects is not entirely in keeping with the associations to both the imperial and ecclesiastical power of the pope found in the Leonine monuments. But the Sancta Sanctorum objects do coincide with Leo III's mosaics in their ecclesiological message: firstly, both the mosaics and the Paschalian objects single out Peter and Paul to express the idea of the "concordia apostolorum." Secondly, both make ample use of the theme of Christs Mission to the apostles, and emphasize the apostle Peter, by referring to Christ's Charge to Peter (Mt. 16: 19.)

The correspondence between the Leonine and Paschalian programs in stressing the power of the Roman church in relation to the rest of the Christian world thus firmly situates the statements of the Sancta Sanctorum objects within the ecclesiological-politcal context of the Lateran palace of the eighth and ninth centuries.

taken from: Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome by Eric Thune

These quotes form my line of thinking on the subject toward the original post. I can't say I have anything to say personally, it is a daunting concept to understand.

I would not say the Orthodox Church is sedevacantist. I think it's position goes quite beyond it into a different line altogether. Quite a subtle difference, but important one.

Sedevacantists generally have no unity. Orthodoxy has unity..

« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 12:15:20 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

In the governance of the Church, says Fortescue, the Orthodox still cling to the old ideal of the Pentarchy. Yet they believe that one of it's prime members, the Patriarch of Rome, has fallen into grave heresy and must repent in order for the Pentarchy to be restored. He says that if the pope were to renounce what the Orthodox regard to be his errors, the pope would again be recognized as the first among bishops. For traditionally the Eastern Churches acknowledged "the Pope as the first Patriarch and chief bishop in Christendom, and also as Patriarch having lawful jurisdiction over all the West"

Fortescue maintains that in this scenario the primacy enjoyed by the pope would be merely a primacy of honour. This means that he would have no real jurisdiction over the other patriarchs. While the pope would be able to exercise his power throughout the West, he would have absolutely no authority in the Christian East (except within the rare instances of when he is petitioned to uphold the truth in the face of heresy within a local eastern patriarchates jurisdicton). Until than says Fortescue, as long as the pope continues to persist in his claims, the Orthodox view him as nothing more than "the head of a heretical Church, no more to be taken account than the Armenian, Coptic, or Jacobite (Syriac) Patriarchs"

Since the Orthodox believe their communion alone to be the one true Church, Fortescue cannot help questioning why they have not simply restored the Pentarchy by appointing an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Here again he identifies another example of what he regards as Orthodox inconsistency. If the Orthodox took their own claims seriously, he argues, they should have long ago established a rival patriarch of the Orthodox faith in Rome, just as they have done in Alexandria, Syria, and Jerusalem. Yet they have not done so, and in reality "they practically acknowledge the Pope as head of the Western Church and legitimate first Patriarch, and they really only complain of his universal claim." Thus in this matter as in others, Fortescue believes that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology"

Fortescues (and most non-Orthodox sede-vacantists) approach to papal primacy is heavily coloured by Vatican I, which stressed that the pope "posseses a preminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate." Nonetheless, Fortescue admits that the governance of the Church was not always as centralized as it has come to be:

Atlhough he zealously defends the papacy, in his private correspondence Fortesce expresses some misgivings about Rome's centralizing tendencies. In a personal letter to Herbert Thurston, Fortescue provides a rare glimpse into his concerns regarding papal power, especially as it was exercised by Pope Piux X during the crusade against Modernism:

"You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives--unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am always preaching that sort of thing. And yet it is not now getting to a reductio ad absurdum? Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?.... We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, as bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephen, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.

In spite of his private concerns, Fortescue remained a stalwart defender of the papal prerogatives throughout his life. It is his contention that the papacy is the primay element lacking in the E. Orthodox Church, and that it alone can enable the Eastern Churches to triumph over the challenges they face.

quoting from "Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches" by Dr. Anthony Dragani (an old friend of mine.)

However, Forescues view that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology" is not one that I would share. One could as easily say , as I did when I was in communion with Rome that "it is hopeless to look for consistency in present day (latin) Catholic theology". There is not perfection found anywhere ...we settle with what we think is the closest available.

Fortescue chorttled about the office of patriarch dying out among the Orthodox, to be replaced by the Holy Governing Synod, and the Churches would keep splinter, becoming ever smaller. A few years after he so pronounced, he was proven so wrong.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If you do not regard the liturgical practises of the Western (rc) Church(es) and their special teachings as binding and if you life within their canonical territorry, but do not submit to the latter (pope, local bishop), than it would be concludent to declare the Apostolic See as well as all other sees to be vacant, not?

If you regard them as not vacant, why are you not entering into their episcope or - if you are convinced that their orthodoxy is not given - declare them as vacant and build up orthodox local churches and elect a latter, which is in communion with the rest of the catholic-orthodox church?

Wouldn't that be a task for a panorthodox (general) synod?

If the Eastern Orthodox Church would consider what you are suggesting, it certainly couldn't be decided by any one individual or hierarch, other than the Holy Hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Churches, because the Church of Rome would first have to be officially declared to be in heresy. I imagine an Extraordinary Synod of representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches could be called by the Ecumenical Patriarch, rather than necessarily convening an Ecumenical Synod (Council).

What you are suggesting is not the least bit realistic at this time. There is a so called "Dialogue of Love," a formal dialogue between representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome. The Church of Constantinople, the "First Throne" commemorated by the primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches, and the Church of Rome, exchange fraternal visits by sending delegations to each others sees on the occasion of their patronal feasts, in the case of Constantinople, at the Phanar, in the Patriarchal Church of St. George the Trophy Bearer, in the case of Rome, at the Vatican's St. Peter Basilica, on the Feast Day of St. Andrew the First Called Apostle for the Church of Constantinople, and on the Feast Day of Sts. Peter and Paul the Apostles, for the Church of Rome. The primates or first hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Churches likewise visit Rome, and also, Popes have visited with the primates at their cathedrals; the Church of Russia has been engaged in dialogue with the Church of Rome in connection with the Pope's request to visit Russia. Not-with-standing the controversy surrounding it within the Orthodox Church, the "Anathema" against the Church of Rome, and the "Bull of Excommunication" against "Michael* and all who follow him," were lifted in 1966 (or so) during simultaneous ceremonies at the Phanar and at the Vatican.

The topic of "ecumenical relations" is on the agenda of the forthcoming Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church. I can't recall if any of the Pre-Conciliar Commissions have published any of the pre-conciliar work on this topic as yet.

Here is an even more interesting question: Who is the Patriarch of the West right now?

Pope Benedict actually dropped that title, which was an Orthodox one, in some hair-brained scheme to make friends with the Orthodox. Did he not read our letters? That's not a title we have a problem with. He drops it, and we are left wondering at his meaning which, obviously, is greater emphasis on universal jurisdiction. Clevery ploy, that.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

But to have a proper bishop of Rome would entail the following two political difficulties:

1) to have a *Roman* orthodox church (referring here to the city), that is, a self-governed Orthodox community of the Orthodox living in Rome both cradle and converts, immigrants and Italians; I don't know when or if the Pan-Orthodox Council will happen and if it will solve the jurisdictional issue, but the recent division of the world into episcopal assemblies signal at, at least, a possibility. After all, there is a specific episcopal assembly for Italy and Malta, which suggests they acknowledge the need for unity of all the Orthodox in Italy;

2) If we get to have some sort of unity of all the Orthodox in Italy, then we have a very big political problem. The primate of a united Orthodox Italian Church would have to be considered the de facto Orthodox Roman Pope. The consequences of that would be to be in open confrontation with the heterodox frankish pope and an absolute zero freezing if not death of all ecumenical dialogues and initiatives with the heterodox Rome. This would mean too, that we are disconsidering any chance of return of heterodox Rome to the Church and basically giving up on them.

So, even if (1) is achieved, would we be up for (2)?

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

But to have a proper bishop of Rome would entail the following two political difficulties:

1) to have a *Roman* orthodox church (referring here to the city), that is, a self-governed Orthodox community of the Orthodox living in Rome both cradle and converts, immigrants and Italians; I don't know when or if the Pan-Orthodox Council will happen and if it will solve the jurisdictional issue, but the recent division of the world into episcopal assemblies signal at, at least, a possibility. After all, there is a specific episcopal assembly for Italy and Malta, which suggests they acknowledge the need for unity of all the Orthodox in Italy;

2) If we get to have some sort of unity of all the Orthodox in Italy, then we have a very big political problem. The primate of a united Orthodox Italian Church would have to be considered the de facto Orthodox Roman Pope. The consequences of that would be to be in open confrontation with the heterodox frankish pope and an absolute zero freezing if not death of all ecumenical dialogues and initiatives with the heterodox Rome. This would mean too, that we are disconsidering any chance of return of heterodox Rome to the Church and basically giving up on them.

So, even if (1) is achieved, would we be up for (2)?

What have we done about the former sees of other churches that fell away? We have an Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and that has not hurt our dialogue with the Copts.

A question I would ask is: why would we not have an Orthodox Patriarch of the West when we do have Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops in other sees that have gone into schism? Why is Rome so special that we're waiting on them, when we haven't waited for others? Why play games instead of calling a spade a spade?

Because historically there were still Chalcedonians in Alexandria after 451 but not much Eastern Orthodox in Rome after 1054.

That's fair. I'm not a fan of playing games the other way either: titular bishops presiding over empty sees.

If there are Orthodox in Rome, there should be a Bishop of Rome. If not, there should not be. For me it's that simple. Hopefully the EA system will evolve into a more normal system of governance eventually.

Because historically there were still Chalcedonians in Alexandria after 451 but not much Eastern Orthodox in Rome after 1054.

That's fair. I'm not a fan of playing games the other way either: titular bishops presiding over empty sees.

If there are Orthodox in Rome, there should be a Bishop of Rome. If not, there should not be. For me it's that simple. Hopefully the EA system will evolve into a more normal system of governance eventually.

Do these Orthodox acknowledge each other beyond their ethnic background? I don't know anything about Orthodoxy in Italy, but my guess is that they don't. Before having an Orthodox Bishop of Rome, the Orthodox Church there must have actual unity. If the process in the US is any reference, that is an awfully painful process. Do the Orthodox in Italy want to be one, despite ethnic/convert identities? Funny that it is precisely for these cases that Jesus made His famous prayer in John for unity and not for union with heterodoxox. Maybe we should redirect our prayers to be listened.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

With God all things are possible. But that's not what I meant. Obviously, the RCC will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is: If we're going to appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, we should accord him the same place as the ancient Orthodox Popes of Rome, so as to restore as far as possible the pre-schism Church.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

With God all things are possible. But that's not what I meant. Obviously, the RCC will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is: If we're going to appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, we should accord him the same place as the ancient Orthodox Popes of Rome, so as to restore as far as possible the pre-schism Church.

Why? Canons can be changed if the need is there. An hypothetical EO Pope of Rome would probably be below Moscow in the dyptichs, but that's just guessing.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

With God all things are possible. But that's not what I meant. Obviously, the RCC will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is: If we're going to appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, we should accord him the same place as the ancient Orthodox Popes of Rome, so as to restore as far as possible the pre-schism Church.

Why? Canons can be changed if the need is there. An hypothetical EO Pope of Rome would probably be below Moscow in the dyptichs, but that's just guessing.

I don't know. I guess I just have a sentimental attachment to the Eternal City and want to see her glory come back. I'm not sure that's the sort of thing I can prove to you that you should agree with.

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Well, that's probably a big difference between our views: I don't think we should be striving for a "restoration." We should be looking at the situation as it exists now and moving forward.

(that's not supposed to sound challenging or anything, just statement of fact. I don't mean to sound angry)

Well, that's probably a big difference between our views: I don't think we should be striving for a "restoration." We should be looking at the situation as it exists now and moving forward.

I agree with this overall. The Church's structure should reflect today's reality; we should not be recreating the glory of yesteryear for its own sake. (Same thing with having bishops in non-existent sees.)

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.